Supreme Court flags procedural lapses in Justice Yashwant Varma impeachment; issues notice to LS, RS

Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma has moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to constitute a three-member committee against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act for his impeachment.

The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih today issued a notice to the Speaker as well as the Secretariats of upper house (Rajya Sabha) and lower house (Lok Sabha) of the parliament.

Varma has challenged Lok Sabha speaker's decision on procedural grounds, arguing that although the notices for his impeachment was given in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla  constituted the committee unilaterally without awaiting admission of the motion by the Rajya Sabha chairman and the joint consultation with the chairman as contemplated in that statute.

"The Hon'ble Speaker has acted in clear derogation of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, by unilaterally constituting a Committee on 12.08.2025 after admitting a motion given before the Lok Sabha on 21.07.2025, as on the very same day a separate motion was given in the Rajya Sabha which had not been admitted," the plea said.

During the hearing today, the Court seemed to agree with the argument. It asked how the legal experts in the parliament had allowed it to happen.

"So many MPs and legal experts but no one pointed this out?" Justice Datta asked.

In August, Lok Sabha Speaker had formally initiated the process to remove Justice Varma from his position as a High Court judge.

The speaker constituted a committee to investigate the discovery of cash at the former Delhi High Court judge's residence.

An in-house inquiry of three High Court judges had earlier indicted the judge and recommended his removal. Members of Parliament (MPs) then moved a motion in the parliament to impeach the judge, who is presently posted at Allahabad High Court.

The motion signed by 146 MPs was accepted by the speaker. Lok Sabha speaker then constituted a committee of the following three members to probe the incident:

- Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar;

- Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava;

- Senior Advocate B Vasudeva Acharya.

The panel last month sought a written statement from Justice Varma on the charges against him. In response to the communication, the judge sought authenticated copies of motions given before both Houses n July and any orders passed consequent to them.

However, Justice Varma has alleged in his petition that he is yet to receive a response to the communications addressed to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. He had also written to the panel, apprising it about his intent to challenge the actions of the Lok Sabha Speaker.

Consequently, the deadline given to him for his written response was extended till January 12, 2026. He has been asked to appear before the committee on January 24.

However, Supreme Court is set to hear Justice Varma's plea in first week of January. Pertinently, he has also challenged the notice issued to him by the committee.

A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14 had allegedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash by the fire fighters. 

Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi then and were traveling in Madhya Pradesh. Only his daughter and aged mother were at home when the fire broke out.  A video later surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire.

The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who denied the accusations and said that it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna (who has since retired) then initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up the three-member committee on March 22 to conduct the inquiry.

The committee that probed Justice Varma comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman. The panel started the probe on March 25 and submitted its report to CJI Khanna on May 4.

The CJI on receiving the report of the in-house committee, asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. However, since Justice Varma declined to quit, CJI Khanna forwarded the report and the judge's response on it to the President of India and the Prime Minister for removal of the judge. Following the allegations, Justice Varma was sent back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court. His judicial work has been taken away while further action is awaited.

On August 7, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma's plea against the in-house committee report and CJI Khanna's recommendation for his removal.

He has now filed the present plea challenging the proceedings initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.

As per the law, a judge cannot be removed without impeachment proceedings in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India states that a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from his office without an order from the President. 

The President can do so after each House of Parliament, by a majority of not less than two-third of the members present, supports the motion. Article 218 extends this clause to High Court judges as well. 

Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1986, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, on receiving a valid impeachment notice against a judge, has to constitute a committee of judges and a jurist to probe the allegations. 

Section 3(9) states,

"The Central Government may, if required by the Speaker or the Chairman, or both, as the case may be, appoint an advocate to conduct the case against the Judge."

The report of this committee is then required to be taken up for consideration in Parliament. 

“If the motion is adopted by each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of clause (4) of article 124 or, as the case may be, in accordance with that clause read with article 218 of the Constitution, then, the misbehaviour or incapacity of the Judge shall be deemed to have been proved and an address praying for the removal of the Judge shall be presented in the prescribed manner to the President by each House of Parliament in the same session in which the motion has been adopted,” Section 6(3) of the Act states. 

In his petition, Justice Varma has argued that the procedure stipulated under the Inquiry Act is not an ordinary legislative exercise, but a reflection of the constitutional obligation cast upon Parliament by Article 124(5) of the Constitution of India. 

“It has been repeatedly, and consistently held by this Hon'ble Court, that the constitutional and statutory procedures pertaining to the removal of sitting judges of constitutional courts must be interpreted strictly without exception, to ensure independence of the judiciary and prevent any arbitrary aberrations in the process of removal,” the plea states. 

It adds that before constitution of a Committee under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, both motions are required to be admitted. If either motion is rejected, the other House cannot unilaterally proceed, the plea contends.

“The proviso unequivocally states that neither the Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Hon'ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha can exercise the powers vested in them unilaterally once motions given before both Houses on the same day are admitted; it is only then that a Committee can be constituted jointly by them. The Impugned Action of the Hon'ble Speaker in unilaterally constituting a Committee, therefore, is contrary to Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and unconstitutional,” Justice Varma has contended.

Further, he has argued that notice given in Lok Sabha was in teeth of an earlier Supreme Court ruling which expressly clarified that findings of the report dated prepared by the committee under the in-house procedure cannot be relied upon for any purpose pertaining to procedures for removal of a Judge. 

The motion given before the Lok Sabha was entirely based upon the findings of the report, Justice Varma alleged.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal and  Jayant Mehta with advocates Stuti Gujral,  Vaibhav Niti, Keshav, Sowjhanya Shankaran, Abhinav Sekhri, and Vishwajeet Singh appeared for Justice Varma.